[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

Palestinian woman addresses protesters: Hey kids, you’re hurting our cause:

Protests are spreading across the United States at college campuses, where university students are gathering in the name of Palestinian rights and occupying campus spaces with tents. Sadly, not everyone who purports to support Palestinians is truly interested in safeguarding our rights.

It pains me to say this as a Palestinian from Gaza. As my home is destroyed and too many killed, I never thought I would find myself criticizing those speaking up. And yet, I cannot be silent about what I am seeing. The truth is that the manner in which many gather to voice their support for Palestinians does more to hurt our cause than help it.

You know what would help the Palestinians in Gaza? Condemning Hamas’ atrocities. Instead, the protesters routinely chant their desire to “Globalize the Intifada.” Apparently they do not realize that the Intifadas were disastrous for both Palestinians and Israelis, just as October 7 has been devastating for the people of Gaza.

They should be speaking up for the innocent victims of Hamas—both Palestinian and Israeli. Instead, they endorse Hamas’s ideology with posters announcing resistance “by any means necessary” and chants of “from the river to the sea,” effectively glorifying the Al-Qassam brigades, Hamas’ military wing, whose ideology is entirely based on the elimination of more than 6 million Israelis from the land.

I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve said that it is Hamas that, first and foremost, must be condemned, and the pressure should be continually increasing with each and every passing day.

Weak sauce, but better late than ever:

The United States and 17 other countries demanded Hamas release all the hostages it holds in Gaza as Biden administration officials tried to ratchet up global pressure on the militant group, which the White House blames for blocking a cease-fire deal that would see the release of hostages.

“We call for the immediate release of all hostages held by Hamas in Gaza for over 200 days. They include our own citizens,” the joint statement said. “The fate of the hostages and the civilian population in Gaza, who are protected under international law, is of international concern.”

The letter was signed by the leaders of the U.S., Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Thailand and the United Kingdom.

“We emphasize that the deal on the table to release the hostages would bring an immediate and prolonged ceasefire in Gaza, that would facilitate a surge of additional necessary humanitarian assistance to be delivered throughout Gaza, and lead to the credible end of hostilities,” the statement said. “Gazans would be able to return to their homes and their lands with preparations beforehand to ensure shelter and humanitarian provisions.”

Second news item

Remember when President Biden announced that a humanitarian pier would be built floating off the coast of Gaza so that aid could more easily reach those in desperate need? Unfortunately, not everyone is on board with the project:

Gaza-based militants launched mortar rounds on Wednesday at Israeli forces making preparations for the U.S.-led effort to establish a new maritime aid route for Gaza, according to three U.S. officials.

No American equipment was damaged as the U.S.-led project — which will establish a pier a few miles offshore as well as a causeway anchored to the beach to expand access to humanitarian aid — is not yet complete, said one of the officials. All were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive plans.

But the attack came as U.S. military personnel were scheduled to soon begin construction of the pier, which the U.S. hopes will drastically expand the amount of aid that can reach the enclave.

Third news item

The vile Harvey Weinstein had his rape conviction overturned by a New York appeals court in a 4-3 ruling:

In the appeal, Weinstein’s legal team argued that he was judged on “irrelevant, prejudicial and untested allegations of prior bad acts,” per the court order.

“The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial,” the court said.

Per the report, Weinstein’s 16-year sentence for a rape conviction in California will not be affected by this.

Fourth news item

Morehouse students unhappy with selection of President Biden as commencement speaker:

Morehouse College, a nearly 160-year-old historically Black college in Atlanta, announced on Tuesday that Joe Biden will be the keynote speaker for its commencement ceremony in May.

…

Anwar Karim, a sophomore and political science major, said that when he found out that the president would speak at graduation, he was “utterly disappointed, but not surprised”. He said that he had been active with other students in speaking out about injustices around the campus, including the Israel-Gaza war and local issues in Atlanta such as the development of the Cop City law enforcement training center.

“It’s absolutely unacceptable for [a historically Black college and university] that prides itself on social justice,” Karim said. “We always want to talk about [Morehouse alum] Dr Martin Luther King Jr, and we always want to talk about the history of activism and leadership that this school has. And yet this decision does not reflect that history of social justice.”

Some students condemned Biden and his administration not only for the president’s actions supporting the war in Gaza, but also for what they say looks like an attempt to turn the students’ graduation ceremony into a campaign stop. “It’s just not a smart move to make, to just allow your students and your school to be used as a political pawn to get Black votes,” said Malik, a Morehouse senior who asked that his last name be withheld.

Lonnie White, a Morehouse junior, said that students have created a petition for the school to rescind the invite. Alumni have also circulated their own petition…

“To have Biden come here, to this campus, to this area, especially during an election year – it’s definitely pandering. We can’t invite anybody else that would actually have an insightful message to the Black students graduating? We have to have Mr 1994 Crime Bill?”

Ouch!

But it’s true that the Biden camp is working overtime to gain the Black vote, which they most definitely need in the key states. And it’s an uphill climb:

It’s not just Wisconsin, though. CNN’s conversations with two dozen top Biden campaign aides, elected officials across the country and voters on the ground in several key states detail a frantic fight that is much bigger than what’s going on in north Milwaukee. Because the president’s hopes in almost every battleground state depend on cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Charlotte and Atlanta, his chances of winning may come down to whether he can reverse the trend among Black voters — particularly Black men.

And while leading Black Democrats mock and decry Trump’s claims that he is appealing to Black voters by promoting his branded sneakers and saying they can now relate to him because he has a mug shot, they more quietly acknowledge that he seems well-positioned to capitalize on that disaffection all the way through November.

Already, there have been polls showing the presumptive GOP nominee increasing his share of the Black vote.

Fifth news item

Another issue of concern for President Biden:

Half of Americans — including 42% of Democrats — say they’d support mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a new Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll.

And 30% of Democrats — as well as 46% of Republicans — now say they’d end birthright citizenship, something guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Additionally:

President Biden is keenly aware the crisis threatens his re-election. He’s sought to flip the script by accusing Trump of sabotaging Congress’ most conservative bipartisan immigration bill in decades.

But when it comes to blame, Biden so far has failed to shift the narrative: 32% of respondents say his administration is “most responsible” for the crisis, outranking any other political or structural factor.

Sixth news item

Arizona indicts 18 for election interference:

An Arizona grand jury has indicted former President Donald Trump ‘s chief of staff Mark Meadows, lawyer Rudy Giuliani and 16 others for their roles in an attempt to overturn Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

The indictment released Wednesday names 11 Republicans who submitted a document to Congress falsely declaring that Trump won Arizona in 2020. They include the former state party chair, a 2022 U.S. Senate candidate and two sitting state lawmakers, who are charged with nine counts each of conspiracy, fraud and forgery…The 11 people who had been nominated to be Arizona’s Republican electors met in Phoenix on Dec. 14, 2020, to sign a certificate saying they were “duly elected and qualified” electors and claiming that Trump carried the state. A one-minute video of the signing ceremony was posted on social media by the Arizona Republican Party at the time. The document was later sent to Congress and the National Archives, where it was ignored.

All the names were not revealed as they had not yet been served papers. Donald Trump was not indicted, but was named as a co-conspirator. And John Eastman was also on the list.

Seventh news item

Unintended consequences:

Safety concerns stemming from anti-Israel campus protests at Columbia University have caused fear among prospective students who no longer want to attend the school, a college consultant tells Fox News Digital.

Anti-Israeli demonstrations have escalated at elite U.S. universities in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack and Israel’s retaliatory attacks on Gaza, with many colleges, including Columbia University, seeing protests paired with antisemitic incidents that have left many Jewish students feeling unsafe.

he campus hostility and antisemitic accusations have even led some aspiring students to look elsewhere, according to a New York-based college consultant, who said only one of around a dozen accepted Columbia students he’s working with is still considering attending.

Surely more will follow this lead. Parents sending their kids off to college, want and expect – at the very least – to know that their kids will be safe on campus. It will be interesting to see the full impact on enrollment at the ivies, when all is said and done.

Eighth news item

After the Biden administration made changes to Title IX that “add protections for transgender students to the federal civil rights law on sex-based discrimination,” Gov. DeSantis of Florida said “no thanks”:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said Thursday his state “will not comply” with recently unveiled changes to Title IX by the Biden administration.

“Florida rejects [President Biden’s] attempt to rewrite Title IX,” DeSantis said in a video posted to the social platform X. “We will not comply, and we will fight back.”

“We are not gonna let Joe Biden try to inject men into women’s activities,” DeSantis continued. “We are not gonna let Joe Biden undermine the rights of parents, and we are not gonna let Joe Biden abuse his constitutional authority to try to impose these policies on us here in Florida.”

Ninth news item

Over at The Bulwark, Presidential official acts and private acts:

Judging by their questions, what the conservative [justices] are evidently willing to do is manufacture some form of criminal immunity that will be governed by a private-versus-official conduct standard (with only official conduct protected), and then send the case back to District Judge Tany Chutkan to parse Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6th indictment of Trump and excise the parts for which Trump would be protected under the Court’s newly minted criminal immunity test. How the court will draw the line between official and private conduct is anyone’s guess, particularly if presidents abuse official powers for purely personal gain. That would be a win for the insurrectionist-in-chief. . .

Anything but the narrowest immunity doctrine would mean far broader protections for future presidents seeking to dodge accountability for bad deeds. Depending on how the Court writes its opinion—and how far future presidents, White House counsels, attorneys general, and Department of Justice lawyers are willing to stretch their words—large swaths of presidential action that were unimaginable before Trump could become not just real but protected.

Have a good weekend.

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Protests on university campuses are continuing across the country. And while police have dismantled encampments and arrested some protesters at various campuses, there is little doubt that the students (and faculty) will be distracted from their mission.

I read with interest John McWhorter’s op-ed, I’m a Columbia Professor. The Protests on My Campus Are Not Justice. and wanted to present some points he made.

McWhorter makes a distinction between protesters. There are those who see Israel as the enemy and chant “from the river to the sea…” because they actually want to see Israel’s destruction. There are protesters who don’t really know why they are protesting but join in anyway (see video at end of post). And finally, there are those who don’t necessarily hate the Jews and want to see the destruction of Israel, but instead their focus is the war in Gaza and their school’s monetary investment in Israel:

…I don’t think that Jew hatred is as much the reason for this sentiment as opposition to Zionism and the war on Gaza. I know some of the protesters, including a couple who were taken to jail last week, and I find it very hard to imagine that they are antisemitic. Yes, there can be a fine line between questioning Israel’s right to exist and questioning Jewish people’s right to exist. And yes, some of the rhetoric amid the protests crosses it.

Conversations I have had with people heatedly opposed to the war in Gaza, signage and writings on social media and elsewhere and anti-Israel and generally hard-leftist comments that I have heard for decades on campuses place these confrontations within a larger battle against power structures — here in the form of what they call colonialism and genocide — and against whiteness. The idea is that Jewish students and faculty should be able to tolerate all of this because they are *white.

I understand this to a point. Pro-Palestinian rallies and events, of which there have been many here over the years, are not in and of themselves hostile to Jewish students, faculty and staff members.

[*Ed. about Jews being white…]

Additionally, McWhorter contrasts the focus of allegedly peaceful protests and a certain double-standard that would cause differing responses based on interpretation of them:

Social media discussion has been claiming that the protests are peaceful. They are, some of the time…But relatively constant are the drumbeats. People will differ on how peaceful that sound can ever be, just as they will differ on the nature of antisemitism. What I do know is that even the most peaceful of protests would be treated as outrages if they were interpreted as, say, anti-Black, even if the message were coded, as in a bunch of people quietly holding up MAGA signs or wearing T-shirts saying “All lives matter.”

…calling all this peaceful stretches the use of the word rather implausibly. It’s an odd kind of peace when a local rabbi urges Jewish students to go home as soon as possible, when an Israeli Arab activist is roughed up on Broadway, when the angry chanting becomes so constant that you almost start not to hear it and it starts to feel normal to see posters and clothing portraying members of Hamas as heroes.

And about previous campus protests, specifically against apartheid regime in South Africa, he says:

…but the bigger difference was that though the protesters sought to make their point at high volume, over a long period and sometimes even rudely, they did not seek to all but shut down campus life.

On Monday night, Columbia announced that classes would be hybrid until the end of the semester, in the interest of student safety. I presume that the protesters will continue throughout the two main days of graduation, besmirching one of the most special days of thousands of graduates’ lives in the name of calling down the “imperialist” war abroad.

McWhorter concludes by contrasting pre- and post-social media protests…and the “tenor” behind them:

But they have pursued their goals with a markedly different tenor — in part because of the single-mindedness of antiracist academic culture and in part because of the influence of iPhones and social media, which inherently encourage a more heightened degree of performance. It is part of the warp and woof of today’s protests that they are being recorded from many angles for the world to see. One speaks up. Butthese changes in moral history and technology can hardly be expected to comfort Jewish students in the here and now. What began as intelligent protest has become, in its uncompromising fury and its ceaselessness, a form of abuse.

Young anti-Israel students tell a journalist exactly why they are protesting

It’s all clear now… pic.twitter.com/vAO7BgizjT

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 24, 2024

P.S. USC announced today that it is canceling its main May commencement ceremony.

This x 100:

“Hello class of 2024. Your family will be deprived of the chance to honor your achievements because a small minority of your classmates feel entitled to break the law in order to express their support for a foreign terrorist organization.”

—Dana

[guest post by Dana]

This is helpful:

As with the three-hour argument in Trump v. Anderson, a disconcertingly precious little of the two-hour argument today was even devoted to the specific and only question presented for decision.
The Court and the parties discussed everything but the specific question presented.

That question is simply whether a former President of the United States may be prosecuted for attempting to remain in power notwithstanding the election of his successor by the American People.
thereby also depriving his lawfully elected successor of the powers of the presidency to which that successor became entitled upon his rightful election by the American People — and preventing the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history.

It is not even arguably a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the fairness, accuracy, and integrity of a presidential election. Let alone is it a core power or function of the President of the United States to ensure the proper certification of the next president by the Congress of the United States. Neither of these is a power or function of the president at all.

In fact, the Framers of the Constitution well understood the enormous potential for self-interested conflict were the President to have a role in these fundamental constitutional functions.

Consequently, they purposely and pointedly withheld from the President any role in these fundamental constitutional functions.

To whatever extent the Framers implicitly provided in the Executive any role whatsoever in these fundamental constitutional functions, it was a limited role for the Executive Branch,
through the Department of Justice, to inquire into allegations of fraud in presidential elections and ensure that the election was free, fair, and accurate.

The former president’s Department of Justice did just that and found that there was no fraud sufficient to draw into question the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The former president of course has refused to this day to accept that finding by not only his own Department of Justice, but also countless others of his closest advisors.

Whether undertaken in his or her “official,” “candidate,” or “personal” capacity, a President of the United States has never been and can never be immune from prosecution (after leaving office),
for having attempted to remain in power notwithstanding the election of that President’s successor by the American People.

Consequently, there is no reason whatsoever for the Supreme Court to remand to the lower courts for a determination of which of the alleged criminal acts might have been personal and which might have been official.

Neither is a clear statement from Congress that a president is subject to prosecution under the statutes with which the former president has been charged necessary in this particular case.

As applied to the former president for the criminal conduct with which he has been charged, there can be no question but that Congress intended a President of the United States to come within the ambit of the statutory offenses with which he has been charged.

For the same reason, it would be ludicrous to contend that the former president was not on sufficient notice that if he committed the criminal acts charged, he would be subject to criminal prosecution by the United States of America.

To hold otherwise would make a mockery out of the “plain statement” rule.

SMDH:

Justice Alito suggests that, if former presidents are subject to prosecution after leaving office, they'll be more likely to seek to unlawfully remain in office after they were defeated for re-election/their term has ended.

JFC.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) April 25, 2024

Remember this about blanket immunity for a president:

Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have prevented the enforcement of the subpoena because of Trump’s responsibilities as president, still rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity and pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it.

“The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity,” Thomas wrote in 2020.

—Dana

[guest post by JVW]

It just gets sillier and sillier in the mind of progressive Democrats here in the Golden State. CalMatters has a recent piece which acknowledges that legislative Democrats are becoming increasingly skittish on their party’s lurch towards soft-on-criminal policies over the past decade and wondering if it’s perhaps time for a return to harsher penalties for repeat offenders. So naturally, the hard left of the caucus is taking a far different tack:

“Some lawmakers have responded (to retail theft) by pushing policies that solely focus on punitive measures that deepen our crisis of mass incarceration at a time when California has pledged to walk away from it and dismantle it,” said state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, a Los Angeles Democrat.

Smallwood-Cuevas is sponsoring two bills that would require counties to set up diversion programs for theft-related offenses and increase staffing at grocery store checkout counters.

The community newspaper in Sen. Smallwood-Cuevas’s district, Westside Voice LA, describes the bills as follows (as usual, bolded emphasis added by me):

SB 1282 would amend penal codes 1001.81 and 1001.95 and would authorize a city or county prosecuting attorney or county probation department to create a diversion or deferred entry of judgment program for persons who commit a theft offense or repeat theft offenses.

The bill would require each county to, on or before January 1, 2026, create that diversion or deferred entry of the judgment program. By increasing duties on local entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law authorizes a judge in the superior court in which a misdemeanor is being prosecuted to offer diversion to a defendant for a period not to exceed 24 months. The amendment would expand that authorization to include any cases being prosecuted, as specified.

[. . .]

SB 1446 would create regulations on self-checkout stations in large grocery and drug retail stores.

The bill would prohibit a grocery establishment or a retail drug establishment from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are satisfied, including having no more than two self-service checkout stations monitored by any one employee and requiring the employee to be relieved of all other duties.

The bill would require a grocery establishment or retail drug establishment that develops or implements technology that significantly affects the essential job functions or eliminates jobs or essential job functions of its employees, or that enables self-service, to complete a specified assessment before implementing the technology.

Additionally, it would require the study to include, among other things, the salaries, benefits, jobs, and work hours that would be eliminated by workplace technology. The establishments would have to provide the study to employees at least 60 days before implementation, and to post a copy of the study in a location accessible to its employees and customers before, and for at least 90 days following implementation of the workplace technology.

So there you have it. Once again we have clueless Democrats who have zero understanding of how free markets work. Would it surprise anyone to learn that Lola Smallwood-Cuevas spent her pre-legislative career as a union organizer and “civil rights activist”? The bill attacking self-checkout stations has nothing to do with discouraging theft: it’s hard to imagine shoplifters, especially those who operate in organized rings, worrying too much about being accosted or detained by check-out clerks. No, this bill is all about creating more union jobs in California stores, which will clearly have the effect of driving up costs to the consumer. At my local grocery store we have six self-checkout stations for customers, and there is one store employee who stands by to help with any issues that arise. Under this bill there would now have to be three paid employees manning those stations. What utter waste.

Sen. Smallwood-Cuevas has filed an additional bill which appears to be modeled upon a proposed local San Francisco ordinance which tries to bully grocery stores into remaining in unprofitable or even money-losing locations. The bill before the California legislature requires that a grocery store give 90 days notice before closing, or presumably be subject to class-action lawsuits from local residents. The San Francisco bill is worse, requiring a full 180 days notice and also insisting that the owners of the store have to work to find a new grocery tenant for the location or else help local residents set up a food co-op. But the cumulative effect of all of these measures is that the state will drive up the cost of operating a grocery store, then make it very difficult for that store to close before accumulating months of significant losses.

Even if California decides to wreck the grocery industry in the name of social justice, fortunately it would seem that in this election year the tide is turning against the soft on crime approach to organized theft rings. Despite Sen. Smallwood-Cuevas’s laughable “provide job skills to miscreants” ideology, her fellow Democrats are going in the opposite direction. The new President Pro Tem of the California Senate has helped shepherd two bills through the Public Safety Committee, one of which stiffens penalties on smash-and-grab rings and the other which provides for harsher penalties when arson is used during shoplifting, usually to distract store employees while the perpetrator engages in theft. Even the notoriously left-wing San Francisco Senator Scott Wiener has introduced a bill to make it easier to prosecute those who break into cars or homes to steal items (a crime rampant in San Francisco) by no longer requiring prosecutors to prove that the car or home was properly locked. This suggests that even an outright leftist lunatic like Scott Wiener can be swayed when his constituents finally holler “Enough!”

The people of Los Angeles’s Westside choose to elect rabid ideologues like Lola Smallwood-Cuevas. That is, unfortunately enough, their prerogative. If the damage that she and her ilk wreak were limited to her district then I would say that her constituents deserve the fruits of their voting habits. However, people like the good senator implement policy which affects the entire state. Perhaps this being an election year, most Sacramento Democrats will for once tune out the nonsense that is churned out by Marxist college professors who have nothing to offer the world but their awful ideas. But next year will be a new story and don’t act surprised if these bad ideas re-emerge once the smoke of November clears. I don’t look forward to it.

– JVW

[guest post by JVW]

In last Friday’s Weekend Open Thread, Dana reported on the GOP House leadership taking up the Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan military aid bill. The Ukraine issue has thus far divided conservatives, and today National Review published two diverse opinions on the matter. First off was the magazine’s house editorial congratulating Speaker Mike Johnson and expressing approval that the U.S. would continue to fund those who were bravely doing battle with rogue states and miserable tyrants:

Johnson deserves credit for changing his mind on Ukraine funding once he acquired real responsibility as speaker and also for trying every alternative to keep his conference together before moving to pass the aid with Democratic votes as a last resort.

Had the Ukraine measure stayed bottled up in the House, Johnson would have borne an outsized measure of blame if an artillery-starved Ukrainian military collapsed.

[. . .]

The best argument against Ukraine aid is that it is costly and depleting U.S. stocks of weapons. But it would be just as costly to bolster front-line states — as we almost certainly would feel compelled to do — if Russia were to sweep to victory in Ukraine. The legislation makes the aid, in theory, a loan, and it attempts to offset the costs with seized Russian assets.

As for U.S. weapons stocks, about $23 billion of the roughly $60 billion in the Ukraine portion of the bill is devoted to replenishing them, although much more needs to be done to revitalize the U.S. military–industrial base.

The overall package includes more than $26 billion in aid for Israel, with crucial funding to replenish its missile defenses, and more than $8 billion for Taiwan and Indo-Pacific security. In a nice additional win, the TikTok divestiture bill was added to the package. It now will be passed along with the rest of the overall bill by a Senate that had seemed reluctant to take it up.

The rest of the editorial lays out the peril that this compromise poses to Mr. Johnson’s Speakership, and chides the bloc of Republican members who seem willing to abandon Ukraine to the devices of Russia.

In today’s pages (er, on today’s screen) Michael Brendan Dougherty dissents from his colleagues. Believing that this is the classic trap of good intentions but zero accountability or strategic thinking, Mr. Dougherty questions whether this is a war that ought to continue, especially since its proponents now openly admit that the support of the United States is vital to Ukraine’s aims:

These bills are a monument to our decadence and political cynicism. Nobody has put forward a cogent argument for how Ukraine will do better with less aid than we gave it last year in preparation for its major counteroffensive. Look to the press, and it’s a repeat of Mitch McConnell’s disgraceful performance in the Senate a few weeks ago. There is hardly even a pretense that Putin will be defeated, but there’s lots of backslapping that the native populists and other skeptics have been defeated.

He rejects the notion that forcing Ukraine into a peace deal as a disarmed, non-aligned “buffer” state between Russia and NATO is a huge capitulation for the West, and points to the history of such states as important neutral zones between competing European nations:

We would never take that deal, indeed, because we have two giant oceans and two friendly countries around us. But it’s traditional in European politics for smaller nations next to major military powers to have “neutrality” as the outer limit of their foreign-policy independence. Switzerland’s neutrality was never intended as a statement of confidence in the promises of Hitler. It worked because Switzerland was reliable and the two major military powers next to it could depend on the fact that Switzerland would not be used by a hostile foreign power as a launch pad. Maybe you prefer a world in which Switzerland perpetually risks its existence to be a more morally compelling figure in the geopolitical drama. But the Swiss, looking at the Germans, the French, the Italians, and before them the Austro-Hungarian Empire, thought differently.

Mr. Dougherty goes on to rhetorically ask why the U.S. and NATO are not more involved in the crisis in Armenia, where last September Azerbaijan forces raided Armenian villages and forced the evacuation of around 100,000 ethnic Armenians, in what Mr. Dougherty believes qualifies as “ethnic cleansing” every bit as much as what Russia is doing in the Donbas. And ultimately he concludes that Ukraine, like Armenia, is just not that much of a strategic interest to the United States:

[NRO writer Jim] Geraghty says that if we want peace, we should prepare for war. But that’s the whole problem for his position. The American people do not want to sign up to fight for Ukraine’s sovereignty themselves. They do not see it as in their national interest because our security and prosperity has never depended on Ukraine. We cannot be crippled by someone else controlling some of its resources. We hardly do any trade with Ukraine. And so there are hard democratic limits on America’s power to affect the outcome that Geraghty and National Review at large would like to see. [. . .] Polls at the very start of this war showed that a supermajority of Americans did not want the U.S. to play a major role in it. Now, Geraghty admits in his dispatch today that without our lethal military aid, Ukraine would choose a different course. In other words, we do have that major role. Choosing your own course in the face of the constraints real life places on you is the only definition of freedom that we have for most peoples. The job of the American military is to defend and advance American interests, not to make the world fair for Russia’s neighbors or teach Putin a lesson.

Finally, according to Mr. Dougherty, not only does the compromise bill not do anything to solve our border crisis, it actively makes things worse and undermine GOP candidates this fall:

Now, we get a good look at the Ukraine-aid bill and the bill to aid Israel. Combine them both, and you will find $4 billion dispersed between the State Department and the Office of Refugee Settlement to be given to left-wing NGOs who help border crossers evade our immigration laws.

Congratulations Mike Johnson and Mitch McConnell! You managed to throw away all leverage Republicans had, pass something that Republican voters don’t want, and that every single Democratic lawmaker did want, and to make the border situation much worse in the meantime, while filling up the treasuries of your ideological enemies. The gift to the NGOs will be used by whatever populist challengers are left in GOP congressional primaries to challenge incumbents, putting more wild-eyed and untested people in winnable races. Biden may be senile, but his administration just played McConnell and Johnson like a Stradivarius.

Mr. Dougherty’s broadside seems to elide the fact that the compromise also enrages left-wing activists due to the support that will go to Israel’s efforts to eradicate Hamas, right at the moment when so much of the American left has decided to go all-in on supporting the rancid Palestinian cause. I would imagine that there is a left-wing version of Michael Brendan Dougherty out there who is eviscerating the Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats for enabling this betrayal of their sacred cause. But I don’t really want to waste any time searching for it.

If nothing else, this should serve as a stark reminder to all of us at how difficult the choices are for our elected officials, especially when we are dealing with irrational actors who are untethered to reality and instead spend 100% of their time living within their own imaginary worlds. But enough about the two major party Presidential candidates. Instead, the contrasting viewpoints between the NRO editors and Michael Brendan Dougherty present a pretty vivid contrast to the legitimate strains of conservative thought here in 2024. All of us had better understand the arguments on both sides of the conservative divide and be ready to deal with them, at least as much as we should understand the spectrum of foreign policy thought on the left.

– JVW

[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

Israel responds:

Two U.S. officials confirm to CBS News that an Israeli missile has hit Iran. The strike follows last weekend’s retaliatory drone and missile attack against Israel, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had vowed to respond to.

Additionally:

Israel told the US that it is not targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, CNN reports, citing a senior US official.

There are several sites affiliated with Iran’s nuclear program in and around Isfahan.

CNN also quotes a US official saying the explosions in Iran are Israel’s response to Iranian attacks over the weekend. The official adds that the Israeli strikes are meant to be “limited” and would target Iranian military sites, while avoiding civilian and nuclear targets.

Earlier today, Iran’s Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian warned that if Israel were to take any sort of military action against Iran, their response would be “immediate and at a maximum level.”

Moreover, the U.S. was notified of Israel’s planned response but did not endorse it.

Second news item

Speaker Mike Johnson makes a decision; better late than never:

The U.S. House of Representatives will have its long-awaited vote on aid for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific as soon as Saturday, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson said on Wednesday, paving the way for its possible passage despite fierce objections from the right wing of his conference.

The House Appropriations Committee unveiled legislation providing more than $95 billion in security assistance, including $60.84 billion to address the conflict in Ukraine, of which $23.2 billion would be used to replenish U.S. weapons, stocks and facilities.

. . . Johnson said he would give House members 72 hours — until midday Saturday — to review the bill and offer amendments before a vote on final passage.

He also said he would release a separate border security bill, meeting a demand from conservatives.

Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene expressed frustration with Speaker Johnson’s decision to bring the aid package to a vote. Speaking to Steve Bannon on his War Room podcast, she said:

“We want an America-first economy and, from now on, Steve, we’re going to demand it from our Republican leaders”…

“I don’t care if the speaker’s office becomes a revolving door,” added Greene, who has filed a motion to ax Johnson from leadership just months after he was chosen by Republicans. “If that’s exactly what needs to happen, then let it be. But the days are over of the old Republican Party that wants to fund foreign wars and murder people in foreign lands, while they stab the American people in their face and refuse to protect Americans.”

Even if it means saving his job, Johnson said he would not move to change the current motion to vacate standard that the House had previously adopted. Shame on the Republicans for the lengthy delay on such a critical issue.

Update::

The House voted Friday in a bipartisan manner to advance a key foreign aid package, a significant step in sending aid to Ukraine and Israel and setting up a final vote as soon as Saturday.

In an extraordinary move, more Democrats (165) supported the measure than Republicans (151). The Democratic votes were necessary to overcome opposition from Speaker Mike Johnson’s right flank, who will likely only increase their calls to oust him.

Thank you, Democrats!

Reminder: Too many Republicans (and by that I mean any at all!) are parroting Russian propaganda, vilifying Ukraine, and failing to see the dire consequences for the West if Ukraine were to fall to Russia.

As it stands, three three Republicans are supporting a push to oust Johnson: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar and Thomas Massie.

And here is Marge being schooled by Timothy Snyder:

A brilliant response by Timothy Snyder to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s accusation of Nazis in Ukraine. As a leading scholar on the subject of nationalism, Snyder makes three points:
1/n pic.twitter.com/fnbrZ9VO2Y

— Roman Sheremeta 🇺🇦 (@rshereme) April 19, 2024

Third news item

USC Provost Andrew Guzman rescinded valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s invitation to speak at the university, citing safety concerns:

He said in an announcement Monday that “over the past several days, discussion relating to the selection of our valedictorian has taken on an alarming tenor.”

“The intensity of feelings, fueled by both social media and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, has grown to include many voices outside of USC and has escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement,” the announcement read in part.

Jewish students explained their concerns about Tabassum’s selection:

After Tabassum was selected as valedictorian, at least two pro-Israel and Jewish groups complained to USC about the choice. They pointed to her social media activity, including her Instagram account, which links to a slideshow encouraging people to “learn about what’s happening in palestine, and how to help.”

It calls for “one palestinian state,” which it says “would mean palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of israel.”

Brandon Tavakoli, president of Trojans for Israel, called Tabassum’s post “antisemitic.”

“The university has to make the decision about whether this valedictorian and her propagation of antisemitic vitriol online is worthy of being the representative of the class of 2024,” he told NBC News. “Commencement is supposed to be an inclusive and welcoming space for all students, including Jewish graduates and their families.”

Trojans for Israel said in a statement on Instagram that university officials failed to vet Tabassum’s social media posts and condemn what it described as antisemitic content.

Tabassum responded to the decision by USC:

“Although this should have been a time of celebration for my family, friends, professors, and classmates, anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian voices have subjected me to a campaign of racist hatred because of my uncompromising belief in human rights for all,”

From the university provost:

There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period.

Given how many top universities across the country have been mysteriously unable to protect Jewish students during this tumultuous season of protest and violence, I guess it stands to reason that USC would also be unable to protect its Muslim students as well, no???

Fourth news item

How it’s going during voir dire on Day 4 of Trump’s hush money trial:

One of the jurors being questioned, who earlier said her father is friends with former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, broke down crying, saying, “I have to be honest, I feel so nervous and anxious right now. I’m sorry.”

She added, “I thought I could do this … I don’t want you to feel like I’ve wasted anyone’s time.”

Merchan called her over to the judge’s bench to speak before excusing her.

Yet another potential juror has been excused from the trial after saying that she is feeling “anxiety” and self-doubt. The potential juror’s voice cracked while answering questions.

The juror is now the third to be excused Friday, underscoring the difficulty the court faces for picking Trump’s jury.

One juror, when questioned about how he views Trump said, when he thinks of the former president, he thinks “usually awesome.”

“I don’t know him personally. He’s a family man. He’s a businessman,” the juror also said about Trump.

Fifth news item

Irony overload: An infamous former president who attempted to overturn legitimate election results plans to safeguard the integrity of the 2024 election in battleground states:

Former President Donald Trump’s political operation said Thursday that it plans to deploy more than 100,000 attorneys and volunteers across battleground states to monitor — and potentially challenge — vote counting in November.

The initiative — which the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee described as “the most extensive and monumental election integrity program in the nation’s history” — will include training poll watchers and workers as well as lawyers…

Trump has warned supporters, without evidence, that Democrats could try to rig the 2024 election.

Sixth news order

Foiled by Polish authorities:

A Polish man has been arrested and charged with planning to co-operate with Russian intelligence services to aid a possible assassination of Volodymyr Zelensky, authorities said.

Polish prosecutors said the man, named as Pawel K, was allegedly tasked with collecting information about an airport in Poland used by Ukraine’s president.

The arrest was made on the basis of Ukrainian intelligence, they added.

Authorities did not specify whether the man actually passed any information on.

Seventh news item

Taking action:

More than 100 pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University were arrested Thursday afternoon and an on-campus tent encampment was removed after the school’s president gave the New York Police Department the green light to clear the protesters, officials said.

The demonstrators had occupied Columbia’s south lawn for over 30 hours “in violation of the university’s rules” and did not leave despite “numerous warnings,” New York City Mayor Eric Adams said.

Columbia President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik announced in a letter to the Columbia community Thursday that she has authorized the New York Police Department to clear demonstrators from campus, writing, “This morning, I had to make a decision that I hoped would never be necessary.”

“I regret that all of these attempts to resolve the situation were rejected by the students involved. As a result, NYPD officers are now on campus and the process of clearing the encampment is underway,” Shafik said.

This:

Privilege is when you hold a loudly disruptive, all-night hate festival in the center of campus, sleep in cozy, matching tents, and when the grown-ups finally force you to leave, custodians who work hard for a living are called in to clean up your mess. pic.twitter.com/GHO5ehUxKK

— Columbia Jewish Alumni Assoc. (@CU_JewishAlumni) April 18, 2024

Have a great weekend.

–Dana

My latest newsletter explains that I have been working on a (currently 8000+ word) post about Radley Balko’s ridiculous mischaracterization of Coleman Hughes’s article about the Derek Chauvin trial. BUT, given that it’s taking so long to get out, I thought I would first toss out a short (OK, maybe not so short, as it’s 4000+ words) review of Coleman’s new book on colorblindness. 2700 free words — and for the paid subscribers, another 2000+ words and a book giveaway.

First, an excerpt from the free portion:

[T]here is genuine reason to believe that adherents of neoracism believe that white people are inferior, and that historically marginalized races are superior. And people seem to take this for granted, like there is nothing unusual about it. This is not a healthy attitude for society.

The whole notion of black racial superiority can take very odd forms, though. It can actually manifest itself in a way that sounds very much like the ravings of a traditional white supremacist. For example, a former chancellor of the New York City schools used a book to teach administrators that deems traits like “perfectionism,” “objectivity,” and “worship of the written word” to be a part of “White Supremacy Culture” that should not be taught to black students. Coleman notes:

The National Museum of African American History and Culture even included a graphic in its website (which was later removed) claiming that hard work, self-reliance, and the nuclear family were attributes of “white dominant culture.”

Doesn’t it remind you of that classic Ryan Long sketch with the woke guy and the racist who agree on everything?

You can easily imagine these guys looking at each other and chanting in unison: “perfectionism, hard work, and self-reliance are attributes of white culture!” Wow, you believe that too?! How great is that?!?!

I actually think the portion for paid subscribers is more interesting, as it has my (minor) criticisms of the book, which mostly revolve around Coleman not applying a critical enough lens to some of the arguments of the Ibram X. Kendi crowd. Fortunately, I have some Substack articles of my own that fill that gap.

Plus, the free book giveaway. As of the publication of this post there are still two unclaimed copies.

Read it here. Subscribe here.

I posted this morning about my recent prediction that the sheep in this country who bleated their disapproval of the Trump New York indictment would change their tune. The latest evidence comes from Mark Joseph Stern, in his piece I Was a Skeptic of the Stormy Daniels Prosecution. I Was Wrong. Stern is a commentator for whom I have no respect (I am calling him a sheep, remember), so don’t think my citation of his piece signals approval of him or anything he said. But his conversion further portends the direction of the rest of the crowd of mindless woolybacks.

When Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought criminal charges against Donald Trump in 2023, I was highly skeptical of his decision. It seemed at the time that other indictments would soon follow, and that they would rest on far firmer legal ground than this one. Over the past year, though, I have realized that my initial doubts about Bragg’s indictment were misplaced.

. . . .

Last year, I was uncertain whether this scheme, while sordid, rose to the level of a felony offense. I am now convinced that, if proved that he took these actions, it surely does. The falsification of business records is, by itself, a misdemeanor under New York law, but it’s a felony when it’s done with the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” In his indictment, Bragg claims that Trump lied about the payments with the intent to violate election law, which is what elevates the crime to a felony.

As an aside, I would love to challenge Stern to point to me exactly where, in the indictment he linked, he finds the claim that Trump lied about the payments with the intent to violate election law. I do not find that claim in the indictment. Do you? And, in fact, there are other possible underlying crimes Bragg has cited, like tax fraud. But please, let’s allow the bleating to continue:

Initially, I was suspicious of this theory; what election law, exactly, was the former president attempting to violate? The district attorney’s initial statement of facts was hazy on this crucial point, raising the possibility that he couldn’t tie the underlying fraud to a state or federal statute.

Turns out he could. Bragg has argued, convincingly, that the former president intended to violate at least two election laws—one state, one federal. First, Bragg asserted that Trump and Cohen ran afoul of the Federal Election Campaign Act by making unlawful campaign contributions (in the form of a payoff) at the direction of a candidate (that is, Trump). Cohen already pleaded guilty for this very act in federal court, so it is hardly a stretch to accuse Trump of intending to break the law by participating in the crime. Second, Bragg argued that Trump ran afoul of a New York election law that forbids any conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” The district attorney claimed that Trump intended to violate this statute by committing fraud in order to secure his own victory in 2016.

There is nothing especially creative about these theories; they are not an example of prosecutors stretching the law to its breaking point so it can fit over the facts of a questionable case. The application of both federal and state election codes, and their interplay with the underlying violation of New York’s business records law, is straightforward.

Stern has completely missed the theory about tax fraud being another potential underlying crime. That’s OK. You guys aren’t reading Stern for insight into the Bragg prosecution. If you want that, you’d read my Substack, where I covered the tax fraud theory in detail.

On the eve of the trial, it is now apparent that the prosecutors are on firm legal ground. They have effectively neutralized Trump’s plan to kill the case before it can be tried on the facts.

Yeah, well, it was apparently to many of us long before the eve of trial. But the herd had not yet moved in the direction of praising the New York case. Now it is starting to move in that direction. So it’s safe for sheep like Stern to move with the crowd.

I just hope New York prosecutors have more than Michael Cohen, because otherwise these sheep are headed for the mutton house.

But I think the prosecutors have it. I’m not worried. And if I become worried, you’ll be the first to know.

Because I’m not a sheep.

Jury selection in Donald Trump’s New York prosecution for felony falsification of business records begins today. Regular readers know that, while I have acknowledged that this case is the least consequential of the four criminal cases Trump faces, I believe the case is legally sound. I have written many lengthy pieces on my Substack (and one at The Dispatch) defending the prosecution, which — if the prosecutors have more than Michael Cohen, and I think they do — may turn out to be a substantial case indeed.

I said in February: “it is also a real possibility that about a month from now, the Conventional Wisdom will start to turn. And that people will realize: hey, this actually is a serious case after all.”

OK, it took a couple of months (I thought the trial was going to start in March) but I think it’s starting to happen. As an example, I present to you the case of one Jed Shugerman, who took to the pages of the New York Times last year to declare the case a “legal embarrassment” but now is backing away from that opinion. Shugerman was interviewed for a piece that came out in the New Yorker yesterday and his comments are enlightening:

Last year, after the indictment was announced, a Boston University law professor named Jed Shugerman wrote a blunt Op-Ed in the Times titled “The Trump Indictment Is a Legal Embarrassment.” Shugerman is no Trump fan; he just had questions about the strength of the case. “Even if it survives a challenge that could reach the Supreme Court, a trial would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election,” he wrote.

Part of this skepticism had to do with the novel way in which Bragg brought the charges against Trump. In New York, falsifying a business record is a misdemeanor. The crime can be bumped up to felony status, however, if it is done to aid and conceal a so-called underlying crime. In the Trump case, the underlying crimes referred to in the charging documents include violations of federal election law, to which Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to in 2018. Trump’s case is historic, not only because it is the first of its kind involving a former President but because it involves an unusual legal maneuver: reaching to federal law to bolster the state charges of falsifying business records. “Stretching jurisdiction,” Shugerman called it. And yet the law professor acknowledges now that he underestimated the case. “I still think people, well-intentioned people, have graded this case on a curve,” he said. But he’d been persuaded by arguments that he’d heard from colleagues and friends. “I’m now more willing to say that it’s fair for the prosecution to go forward, and for Trump to have his day in appellate court,” he said. He, too, thinks a conviction is likely.

Note the part I have bolded. This is a perfect example of the herd mentality that I alluded to in February. It’s not entirely clear whether he is saying he was persuaded by others last year, or now. My guess is: both. But either way, he’s going with the herd, and his new opinion suggests that the herd is changing its mind.

For some time, I have been in a distinct minority of legal commentators saying I thought this case had substance. But the herd said otherwise. Shugerman, in bleating his friends’ and colleagues’ opinion on the pages of the New York Times, made much of the argument that the case was preempted by federal law. But if you’re a reader of my Substack, you know that a federal judge made short work of that argument (about which I had been publicly skeptical) in an opinion that Donald Trump never even bothered to appeal. The trial judge in New York reaffirmed that he agreed recently, as I explained in another Substack piece. With developments like these, and with the trial judge throwing out just about every argument that the herd relied upon last year, the herd is beginning to sing a different tune — and Shugerman is right there with them.

I predict you’ll be seeing a lot more of this, as the herd begins to learn that PREEMPTION ARGUMENT BAAAAD, BRAGG CASE GOOD.

On Thursday I appeared on the “Beg to Differ” podcast hosted by Mona Charen, politics editor for The Bulwark. I had a great time talking about the Bragg prosecution of Trump, as well as issues about abortion and the failed attempt to impeach Joe Biden.

Having survived the Brett Kimberlin episode and prosecuted Mexican Mafia figures and such, I was not eager to be on camera, so Mona gave me a pass and let me keep my camera off. But you can listen to the audio at the home page for the podcast, here. You should be able to listen without a subscription. The episode can also be viewed on YouTube with a sort of hilarious looking silhouette of a fella in a suit in the shadows to represent me.

My goal was to avoid just blathering without purpose. I wanted any listener to come away knowing some facts or set of facts that they did not know going in. Let me know how you think I did on that score.